As I write this 55 people have visited this thread (besides me) or there have been 55 visits in all by whatever number of members and only two, besides me, have voted.

Is it tougher to choose a composite attack than to vote in a one on one contest. Its like the selectors having to find a replacement for one injured player against selecting a squad.

OR is it difficult to choose from an options list, each of which has at least one choice you disagree with ?

Interesting.

Imagine what the selectors, a bunch of them with different preferences, have to go through :o)

10-01-2013, 10:24 PM

watson

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJS

As I write this 55 people have visited this thread (besides me) or there have been 55 visits in all by whatever number of members and only two, besides me, have voted.

Is it tougher to choose a composite attack than to vote in a one on one contest. Its like the selectors having to find a replacement for one injured player against selecting a squad.

OR is it difficult to choose from an options list, each of which has at least one choice you disagree with ?

Interesting.

Imagine what the selectors, a bunch of them with different preferences, have to go through :o)

I think that things would be easier to comprehend if you had followed/participated in the actual ATG Indian XI thread and therefore knew more about Amar Singh, or even Chandra and Prasanna.

Those 3 players might be confusing to people who don't know Indian cricket very well. I'd never heard of Amar Singh (much) up until a week ago.

11-01-2013, 12:01 AM

SJS

Quote:

Originally Posted by watson

I think that things would be easier to comprehend if you had followed/participated in the actual ATG Indian XI thread and therefore knew more about Amar Singh, or even Chandra and Prasanna.

Those 3 players might be confusing to people who don't know Indian cricket very well. I'd never heard of Amar Singh up until a week ago.

I fully appreciate that. Exactly the point I am trying to make in the The importance of cricket history and literature . . . thread.

I agree it is tough to know about players in the eras gone by but trust me it would be worthwhile to read up a bit on them. Fortunately a lot of the cricket writers like Cardus, Thomson, Swanton, Ray Robinson, Bailey, Batchelor, Fingleton etc make fabulous reading for they are masters of the written word as well. You know, second hand cricket books do not cost a lot. It is the new ones from the modern day writers that are so expensive. It is not difficult to buy second hand Carduses etc and start building a library from a young man's pocket money these days.

We had no clue where to get a Cardus from. I had to beg on my bended knees from my coach to part with his Cardus books, one at a time and with a strict instruction to return each within 48 hours. . . . and I dared not dog ear a single page let alone allow a drop of tea to fall on a page :D

Start reading Cardus and the chances are you will be hooked.

11-01-2013, 06:50 AM

Kirkut

Strange no Zaheer Khan in the list. I mean for a period 2007-10, he came up with some of the most quality spells of reverse swing.

11-01-2013, 08:58 AM

SJS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirkut

Strange no Zaheer Khan in the list. I mean for a period 2007-10, he came up with some of the most quality spells of reverse swing.

He isn't there because we have the choices offered by Kapil, Amar Singh and Srinath - all arguably better bowlers. Imagine we have no Bishan Bedi, without doubt the best left arm spinner we have ever produced. There is also no Gupte, easily the best conventional leg spinner with some awesome credentials as well.

In a side selected from a pool of 7 decades, it is no surprise that someone like Zaheer is not there just like there will be no Lee in an Aussie side.

11-01-2013, 12:01 PM

Satyanash89

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJS

He isn't there because we have the choices offered by Kapil, Amar Singh and Srinath - all arguably better bowlers. Imagine we have no Bishan Bedi, without doubt the best left arm spinner we have ever produced. There is also no Gupte, easily the best conventional leg spinner with some awesome credentials as well.

In a side selected from a pool of 7 decades, it is no surprise that someone like Zaheer is not there just like there will be no Lee in an Aussie side.

Zaheer's achievements in 2007-2010 are massively underrated imo... he carried the otherwise extremely toothless attack on his shoulders and produced quality spells with real consistency. Plus he provides some variety as a left armer. Id probably pick Srinath but imo Zaheer should atleast be in the discussion

11-01-2013, 12:12 PM

doesitmatter

i selected Zaheer over Srinath in the Indian ATG thread..For a FB right attitude, body language is very important..Srinath had none of it..

11-01-2013, 12:23 PM

Cevno

No Dinda ?

I'd like to submit a review petition to the authorities.

11-01-2013, 12:24 PM

Prince EWS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cevno

No Dinda ?

I'd like to submit a review petition to the authorities.

Ganguly will be up in arms.

11-01-2013, 05:25 PM

watson

Quote:

Originally Posted by doesitmatter

i selected Zaheer over Srinath in the Indian ATG thread..For a FB right attitude, body language is very important..Srinath had none of it..

At first glance Zaheer Khan's stat's appear stronger than Srinath's. There is also the bonus that he is a left-armer which adds variety.

However, Srinith's playing years were 1991-2002. This is significant because it was really was a tough decade to play Test match cricket with some truly great players like Lara and Ponting approaching their peak. I don't think the cricket during the 90s was quite as tough as the 1980s, but it was pretty close to it. And yet Srinath was able to compete against the very best with distinction.

On the other hand, Zaheer Khan's playing years of 2000-2012 were not on the same plane as Srinath's. So the point being, I'd rather have a toughened bowler in my team who's been there and done that, and proven himself against the very best, than not.

11-01-2013, 07:40 PM

Satyanash89

Quote:

Originally Posted by watson

At first glance Zaheer Khan's stat's appear stronger than Srinath's. There is also the bonus that he is a left-armer which adds variety.

However, Srinith's playing years were 1991-2002. This is significant because it was really was a tough decade to play Test match cricket with some truly great players like Lara and Ponting approaching their peak. I don't think the cricket during the 90s was quite as tough as the 1980s, but it was pretty close to it. And yet Srinath was able to compete against the very best with distinction.

On the other hand, Zaheer Khan's playing years of 2000-2012 were not on the same plane as Srinath's. So the point being, I'd rather have a toughened bowler in my team who's been there and done that, and proven himself against the very best, than not.

I thought the 2000s were supposed to be tougher for the bowlers... this 1990s vs 2000s debate brings up more contradictions every time its mentioned

11-01-2013, 07:59 PM

watson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satyanash89

I thought the 2000s were supposed to be tougher for the bowlers... this 1990s vs 2000s debate brings up more contradictions every time its mentioned

OK, it's just my overriding perception. Anyone with some hard facts care to comment on the 1990s V 2000s

11-01-2013, 08:04 PM

SJS

Quote:

Originally Posted by watson

At first glance Zaheer Khan's stat's appear stronger than Srinath's. There is also the bonus that he is a left-armer which adds variety.

However, Srinith's playing years were 1991-2002. This is significant because it was really was a tough decade to play Test match cricket with some truly great players like Lara and Ponting approaching their peak. I don't think the cricket during the 90s was quite as tough as the 1980s, but it was pretty close to it. And yet Srinath was able to compete against the very best with distinction.

On the other hand, Zaheer Khan's playing years of 2000-2012 were not on the same plane as Srinath's. So the point being, I'd rather have a toughened bowler in my team who's been there and done that, and proven himself against the very best, than not.

You make some very good points.

I find it a bit difficult to compare Zaheer with Srinath although they were not so far apart and one saw both their careers in their entirety. For reasons that include some of what you have written.

I have always felt Srinath was overhyped and this made him try to bowl above himself. He was not a tear away fast bowler and his attempts to bowl as if he was one made him look like an idiot at times to any thinking viewer, Bowlers like Srinath, ( in Indian cricket post partition even his type have been so very rarethat they are to be cherished) need to bowl to their strengths and Srinaths strengths would have been best used if he had done just that. Something like what Zaheer learnt in England during his county stint after being dropped by India, and came back to the international side a completely different bowler. Zaheer bowled to the best of his abilities during his second innings with team India and this enabled him to become a far better weapon for India than he ever looked like he would be in his first innings.

Srinath did not make this transition. Of course he became more mature as he played longer but he did not have the transformation that one observed in Zaheer from an instinctive young fast bowler to a thinking professional who could be handed the responsibility of leading the attack and mentoring the younger crop in the latter part of his career.

Srinath started his career under the shadow of the mighty Kapil Dev. It prevented him from making the Indian team on a permanent basis for some time and when he did, Srinath was determined to show he was no slouch as compared to the great Kapil. I suspect this made him bowl faster and more aggressively during this early period. Maybe he would have bowled like that anyway. His speed got noticed and that he was much quicker than kapil had become by now but only the lay observers forgot the fact that Srinath was young while Kapil was at the fag end of a long career. Ib fact, had he not been such a good batsman as well, Kapil would have left the scene earlier and in the last year for that silly chase of Hadlee's record.

Of course, Kapil was slower than Srinath when they bowled together but how many people remember Kapil when he first came. He was at the higher end of fast medium bowlers and was always bowling within himself so that he could slip in the faster ball now and then that took the best in the world by surprise.

So, while the latter day Kapil was distinctly slower than the young and chaffing-at-the-bit Srinath, he was still superbly accurate. This showed up Srinath's wayward bowling. Srinath continued to attempt his bouncers and generally bowl a tad shorter than he should have to make best use of his sharply in coming main weapon. It was only towards the very end of his career, probably the last year, if I remember right, that he bowled the lengths he should have bowled all through. I remember talking to friends during the 2003 world cup, Srinath's last international performance and saying "Why didn't he bowl like this earlier in his career." His Test career had already ended by then.

This to me was the major plus for Zaheer that he learnt his lesson and came back a better bowler who bowled above his class. Srinath, despite being an engineer and, clearly a bright guy, continued to behave like an idiot with a ball in hand and bowled well below what he was capable of.

So who do we choose between them? I would pick neither in my ATG India side. For me Kapil, Nissar and Amar Singh would precede both of them so even if I wanted three pacers I wouldn't choose them. But to select between them is tougher because of what might have been ?

When I first responded to Kirkut's post on "why Zaheer isn't there" I was probably answering on behalf of everyone who voted Srinath in and Zaheer out of the mix. Asked directly, or even if I ask myself, it is a tougher choice than one thinks at the outset.